What Makes A Barbarian Hero?

A few weeks back I talked about what makes an anti-hero in Getting Back to Basics When it Comes to Anti-Heroes. So I thought I'd continue examining the archetypes and styles of our stories this week, and delve into one of my personal favorites... the Barbarian Hero!

Things are about the get ripped in here.

Classic Heroes (Through The Lens of The Barbarian)

As I said when we were talking about anti-heroes, the first thing you need to do is to establish the traits and qualities of your Classic Hero. Not to beat a dead horse, but some of the traits you run into included:

- Prowess: Classical heroes were good at things (typically fighting, but other stuff, too).

- Surety: Classical heroes knew what to do, and usually wasted no time doing it.

- Looks: Classical heroes were usually handsome, and were prone to being admired.

- Cause: Heroes of antiquity fought for themselves, while heroes in the middle ages tended to fight for king, god, and other rulers. The difference between Hector and Lancelot, in this one.

- Flawless: Classical heroes had either no flaws, or their single, Tragic Flaw. Sometimes physical, sometimes more metaphorical.

- Special Bloodline: Whether it was from gods or kings, heroes were born special more often than not.

While there was some variation from story to story and culture to culture, this was the typical mold for where heroic characters fit. And from Achilles to Aragorn, this mold is very much a part of our modern storytelling toolbox.

So where do the barbarians come in?

The Barbarian Hero has always been a part of our stories, our legends, and our tales; he didn't just show up a century or so ago under the pen of Robert E. Howard. From ancient myths that described characters like Enkidu the beast man, to Cu Chulainn and his legendary riastrad, and into the modern day with characters like Kull the Conqueror, Tarzan, and the Forgotten Realms' own Wulfgar, the barbarian hero has always been with us.

But what makes the Barbarian Hero different from classical heroes?

The first thing a Barbarian Hero requires is an uncivilized aspect. Whether it's someone from civilization being raised in the wilds like the Earl of Greystoke, or a character who was born and bred in the wilds of the world like Conan, that lack of a civilization is essential to these characters. It should be noted, also, that some characters are merely treated as throwbacks; uncivilized people born into civilized times. Often it's this inherent lack of civilization that acts as the source of the character's power in some way, shape, or form (the savage furies of the north, the rippling thews of the southern jungles, etc.).

Beyond that uncivilized aspect, though, the Barbarian Hero is a creature of both raw physicality, and unstoppable willpower. Many of them are great in stature, as it represents they are different than most men, and even those who are of an average size have a strength far greater than those around them (you see this in The Jungle Book 2, when Mowgli is far stronger than average men because he was raised by wild beasts). Barbarian Heroes also tend to be stronger-willed than average characters, and despite being seen as uncivilized brutes by many, they usually possess a wide variety of skills and experiences, as well as a firm grasp of logic and reason.

One of the final aspects of the Barbarian Hero is that they are often (but not always) positioned opposite their nemesis of the Sorcerer. For while a Barbarian Hero is a rampantly physical character, their greatest opponents are those who use trickery and magic to confound or challenge that strength. In many of these matches it is the Barbarian Hero's sheer force of will, as well as their cat-like reflexes, that allow them to win the day.

This mixing of the heroic with the savage, and keeping many aspects we recognize while mixing them with ones we do not, tends to create interesting characters. And while it is a mold that has waxed and waned over the years, it is not one that has ever really gone away.

Truth is Stranger Than Fiction?

One of the odder things about the barbarian hero, as an idea, is that there's some truth to it. According to TV Tropes, older societies often dealt with a slew of problems that could be directly attributed to the problems of civilization. From disease running rampant, to difficulties with inbreeding, to the issue of feeding a large number of people in one location, you often saw weakness that wasn't present in more nomadic, less-developed societies.

That was probably part of where this archetype came from in the first place... because sometimes our actual history influences the stories we tell in some truly bizarre ways.

That's all for this week's Craft of Writing! For more of my work, check out my Vocal archive, or at My Amazon Author Page where you can find books like my sword and sorcery novel Crier's Knife!

If you'd like to help support my work, then consider Buying Me A Ko-Fi, or heading over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page! Lastly, to keep up with my latest, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, Twitter, and now on Pinterest as well!

Why I Hate Batman (And What Writers Can Learn From His Character Mistakes)

One of my earliest memories is going to see Tim Burton's Batman in the theater with my parents. Not long after one of my uncles gave me a leather bound copy of Frank Miller's run on the Dark Knight, and I was a loyal follower of the animated series from the time it came out. I even wrote an article right here that shows players how to convert the caped crusader into a character for the Pathfinder roleplaying game. No I can't quote the comics chapter and verse, but it's no stretch of the truth to say I've been a fan most of my life.

That's why it was so awkward for me when I realized Batman is actually really bad at what he does.

What Are You Talking About?

Make it good, punk.

Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? Bruce Wayne goes to see the Mark of Zorro with his parents, and on their way back from the theater a mugger shoots and kills Bruce's parents. Broken, Bruce dedicates himself to making sure that no one else goes through this kind of pain. He trains with martial arts masters in the east, studies under criminal investigation experts in Europe, and devotes his mind, body, and soul to understanding every method at his disposal for stopping crime. When he returns to Gotham he builds an arsenal of highly advanced weapons and tools, and declares himself the protector of all the citizens within the city limits.

With me so far? Good.

Comedian Reginald D. Hunter put it best, so I'm going to paraphrase what he said. The argument goes a little something like this. As I understand it Batman is a rich white man in a hopelessly corrupt city, and in order to avenge the death of his parents he decides to put on a costume and beat up on street level crime. He doesn't go after crooked bankers or white collar crime, just drug dealers and gang bangers. Batman is a conservative's wet dream. Fuck Batman.

From that point onward I could never see the character in the same light.

No Punching Required

To be fair Batman is a character written for comic books. This means he needs to have serial adventures, often with a repeat cast in the form of the Rogue's Gallery, and that he needs to be actively participating in his adventures. With that said his actions make no goddamn sense given his experience, education, and knowledge of human psychology.

Ummm... what?

All right, I'll put it this way. Bruce Wayne has studied crime all over the world. It's intimated that he is a genius capable of building the most advanced machines, maintaining a technological arsenal, following the most obscure trail left by the neatest of villains, and that he understands the human mind so well that he often knows what criminals are going to do before they take any action at all.

So why the hell hasn't he completely eliminated common street crime in Gotham City by using the two greatest weapons in his arsenal: prodigious wealth, and the social standing of the 1%?

The Massive Plot Hole

While there are some villains (The Joker, Mr. Freeze, Poison Ivy, etc.) who are threats beyond reason or sense, most of the crime that Batman goes after is pretty garden variety stuff. He patrols the city from the rooftops looking for muggers, drug dealers, pimps, hired killers, and others. While there's no argument that these are legitimate problems, criminal justice research generally agrees that patrolling the streets is one of the worst ways to stop crime from happening. This is true even for huge, metropolitan police forces... Batman's one man. So not only is the most brilliant detective and dangerous martial artist in the world wasting his time on a technique he must know is inferior, but he isn't fighting the root cause of most crime.

What is the root cause of crime you ask? And why can't Batman punch it in the face?

Because crime isn't perpetrated by evil; it's perpetrated by people. Crime is a symptom of crumbling infrastructure, poor education, lack of good-paying jobs, and other, more ephemeral things. For every lunatic with a painted face there are a hundred thugs and goons who might never have decided to beat people up for a living if they had a comfortable home to live in, a good education, a chance to get good jobs, and social services they could depend on. Things that a billionaire who runs a massive corporation could easily provide, and even better turn a profit off of so he could help even more people.

Failing that (because who wants to read about a superhero who does good by providing jobs and social welfare?), why not focus on people who commit the biggest crimes? Bankers that launder money for organized crime keep these organizations going, white collar criminals who bankrupt hundreds of thousands of people lead to suffering and desperation on a massive scale, and corrupt politicians pave the way for policies like the school-to-prison pipeline. These are characters mentioned in passing, sometimes, but generally speaking they're passed over in favor of tooth-splintering brawls and madmen with time bombs.

Batman's avowed goal is to fight crime, but all he's doing is fighting criminals. He's punching the tide, and while a few droplets are stopped, the waves just keep crashing onto the beach.

He's Only One Man

Then again, so is he.

It's a romantic idea, the lone knight standing against a sea of wickedness. The problem is that as a character Batman has been shown to be a pragmatist. He's recruited numerous cohorts and allies, from Robin and Batgirl to James Gordon and others. Time and time again we see him not sleeping for days trying to do it all himself... why not just recruit more help?

It's pretty simple, really. Bruce took Dick Grayson and turned him from an acrobat into a skilled crime fighter... why couldn't he do that with others? There is a plot from Frank Miller with this very proposal, but more often than not Bruce hogs all the action to himself. Why not start up a security company and personally train those in it to act as his agents? Why not provide some of his technology to the police force to give them the tools they need to keep order? Why not campaign as Bruce Wayne to put driven, honorable men in public office?

The short answer is because that would solve too many problems. The more convoluted answer is that what drives Batman as a character, and us as his readers, might just be the need to indulge in the Old Testament style retribution against those we perceive as being in the wrong. It's a clear hero/villain line... but are those really the only stories Batman has to tell?

The Lessons Writers Should Take Away From This

There are a few things that I think my fellow writers can take away from this discussion.

Number one is that it's always a good idea to explore your character as deeply and fully as you can. If you give a character certain skills or knowledge, then it's important that they use those abilities in the most logical ways. Never be afraid to plumb the depths of your characters; you need to know everything about them even if your audience doesn't.

Number two is that you should always examine character goals from a big-picture perspective. One man eliminating crime is a Quixotic kind of goal, while killing a particular crime family (*coughs* Punisher *coughs*) is a great deal more feasible. Neither is necessarily better or more right than the other, but it's important for you to know whether or not your characters can achieve their goals in a believable way by the time you finish telling your story.

Number three is that there's always room for improvement. Even classic heroes and villains have rough spots that can be sanded out, and there will always be holes in the plot road. The best we can hope to do as authors is to make the bumps as shallow as possible, and to make sure our readers are driving so fast they don't notice the flaws we do have in our narrative highways.

As always, thanks for dropping by the Literary Mercenary. If you want to keep in touch with my updates plug your email into the box on the top right, or follow me on Facebook or Tumblr. If you'd like to see more content like this then drop a tip into my "Shakespeare Gotta Get Paid, Son" box on the top right, or drop by my Patreon page and become a patron today!